08-23-2010, 10:18 AM
[quote name='deroppi' timestamp='1282557662' post='2034']
Does the new 55-300VR make sense or not?
It is lighter than the 70-300VR, but "only" made for DX.
The 55-200VR was a good cheap zoom (and very light).
The 70-300VR is very good low cost zoom (but a bit clumsy on a D40/D5000).
To make the 55-300VR a hit, it has to be at least as good as the 70-300 I suppose and about the same prize.
Since I like light equipment, it would perfectly fit me with only 500gr weight and still having a metal bayonet.
Has anyone seen any sample pictures yet?
[/quote]
The lens has not even been released ... just announced.
It makes sense, of course. It's cheaper to start with.
According to Nikon it has also much better MTFs so it's probably sharper specifically at 300mm.
Klaus
Does the new 55-300VR make sense or not?
It is lighter than the 70-300VR, but "only" made for DX.
The 55-200VR was a good cheap zoom (and very light).
The 70-300VR is very good low cost zoom (but a bit clumsy on a D40/D5000).
To make the 55-300VR a hit, it has to be at least as good as the 70-300 I suppose and about the same prize.
Since I like light equipment, it would perfectly fit me with only 500gr weight and still having a metal bayonet.
Has anyone seen any sample pictures yet?
[/quote]
The lens has not even been released ... just announced.
It makes sense, of course. It's cheaper to start with.
According to Nikon it has also much better MTFs so it's probably sharper specifically at 300mm.
Klaus